-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.
Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.
rw
You need to reread the posts. It is pretty clearly delineated what I was referring to. If you can't get it after a couple more tries, well we probably shouldn't be talking about it anyways.
As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph (and entire point of view on this subject), this is another self serving pile of junk. This is the classical "my hypothesis makes sense for my point of view, hence it is correct." Take another example: religious leaders condemn a homosexual lifestyle as leading to the moral decay and the descent into the seething morass of the general population. It makes sense if it fits your view of the world. Is it proven? Or how about some people who spout off about video games leading to an elevated level of violence these days. It makes sense because there's lots of violence in some games and that has to rub off on the players. Has this been proven?
The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.
As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I can't speak for all "yeasayers" but I certainly am not discussing science - I'm discussing music and listening. I view that as more of an art than a science. I believe Mr Kuller would agree, hence there is no need for any scientific journal articles.
Have you ever watched, say, a basketball game for pleasure? Then have you ever served as a statistician for a game? You watch it entirely differently. Just an example of how the right brain and left brain work differently while performing the same activity. I can tell you that listening to music for pleasure and listening for component differences is totally different. One is pleasurable, the other is hard work!
As for proof of cable sonics (or proof against), I think those that care about such things are the ones that need to have at it. Why in the world would cable companies go to all the time and expense to perform the experiments you're recommending? They're already convinced of cable sonics! They don't need the proof you seem to require. I can appreciate your POV (even if it seems I don't and even though I don't agree) but cable companies wouldn't appreciate your willingness to spend THEIR money for YOUR satisfaction i.e proof.
Personally speaking, when I feel the need to test every sensory perception I have, such as the tastes of my favorite foods, colors, and other experiences, I'll blind test cables. It's that simple. I either trust my senses or I don't - and I do. BTW, your turntables do not sound different until you blind test them, according to your beliefs. ;)
Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form.
I think a lot of sighted testing problems comes down to the listener wanting to hear the differences when they know that there should be differences. I remember in many of my sighted cable tests, that I would notice the intake of breath of the flautist or the clarinetist clacking on his reed slightly for "the first" time with the new cables, but then when I went to listen with the other cables where these miraculous sounds were absent - whoops they were there all along - I just didn't pay attention to them until I was really listening for the differences. This doesn't mean the sounds were more clear with the new cables; more likely it was me trying a little bit harder to justify a difference in the cables.
My TTs sound different in both blind testing and sighted testing. If cables sound so different they should also sound different in both blind and sighted testing. As of right now, they sound different only when doing sighted testing.
-
The orignal post showed an example, regardless of how unscientific, of how senses and observations can be skewed. Further, there are hundreds of examples of this from all aspects of life.
Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong.
Yes, I've interpreted my observations incorrectly on many occasions. Sometimes I am aware of it, like when I watch an illusionist, sometimes I am not, like when I grab the wrong beer in the pub.
Conclusions are tricky business and the brain will tend to push us towards the conclusion that we desire. If you are not aware of that or think you can always control it, then you will reach more incorrect conclusions than you should.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...
It simply answers your last objection.
...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?
I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.
For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.
The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.
When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.
rw
For your first part, I've repudiated your claims that blind testing is effective for one type of test but not another. You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.
For the rest, Monstrous Mike just stole my thunder in the other thread. I was going to say (and will say) that while I am doing most of the inquiring, I certainly can empathize with how Copernicans and Galileans felt in the Inquisition times. The hard headed religious judges and censors of the time would not listen to reason, but said that it was God's way or the highway.
You say that you and several audio reviewers share conclusions about the audibility of differences in components. What does this have to do with a sighted test being better than a blind test? It sounds mostly like there's a bunch of old boys sitting around scratching each others' backs. There isn't one iota of sense in what you have just told me.
It's the same scenario as I laid out above with regards to certain religious zealots or anti-gaming big mouths. You (and they) want to fit a conclusion into a hypothesis without first obtaining results. Normally a hypothesis is proposed, test results obtained, and a conclusion drawn.
As well, I've indicated from the start that it is not the cost, but rather the sighted environment that is the determining factor in whether you can hear a difference.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.
Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.
I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Why wouldn't the companies want to pander to my type? If half of audiophiles are yeasayers and half are naysayers that's a huge pick up in business if they can prove a thing because now the naysayers will be buying their product. I have money to spend. If by spending $2k or more on cables would make a noticeable improvement to my systemt then I'd be willing to spend it. However, I need proof in a scientifically verifiable form..
... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
... and scientific proof from a cable company will cause you to buy products which by your own blind tests are not differentiated from one another???? Is your position that science and science alone will tell you what you hear? I'm sorry but I just can't subscribe to such a theory.
Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.
I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s. :)
rw
Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here? A concession that the basis sighted testing in audio is as flimsy as a fashion model's lingerie?
BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.
So what you're saying is that under blind test, you could not hear a difference between Cable A and Cable B. But if the Cable A company proved to you that you were wrong, you'd buy Cable A - even though you previously couldn't hear a difference.
Thanks, but I'm going to stick with buying those differences I can hear rather than differences I'm told to hear... or told I can't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Yet, not one person who has observed on their own that cables sound different to them will even admit to the possibility that their observations may have been compromised and their conclusions may be wrong..
Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
whao! Some of those that never believed in assisted flight lived happy lives, they just never got to cross the atlantic in less than 6 hours ;)
Yes, and some of those who refute cable sonics live happy lives as well - they just aren't maximizing their systems! ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Nice sidestep of the question I posed earlier. Let me rephrase for you:
E-Stat, is the foundation for your belief in sighted testing based solely on the say so of one especially forward thinking audio reviewer? Do you have any other reason for believing that sighted testing is equivalent to or better than blind testing (other than your own admitted sighted testing experiences)?
You'll find he answers fewer questions than anyone else here, although he may have more replies.
-Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Then let me be the first. My conclusions have been wrong before and they will be wrong again. But my conclusions are my reality. I'm pretty sure I prefer certain tastes over others, certain smells over others, certain sounds over others, etc etc. I can enjoy them and live a happy life or I can spend my time second guessing them. I choose the former.
You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.
So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.
-
Rant mode on
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:
Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.
This is not true. You are constantly evaluating what you are listening too, even before you start playing the music. You'll go and pick out different music on different days based on mood. This is an evaluative process. You may find yourself listening to a piece that yesterday was great and today is grating.....an evaluative process.....
Pretty clear indicaton that the brain halves do not function independantly of each other as is being eluded to here. While one hemisphere may dominate, it does not, by any means, ignore the other, unless forced to do so. Enter the DBT and sensory deprivation(damn, you mean science understands this already?).
The writer also doesn't seem(want?) to understand that the differences, if audible, will stand out in a switched test, making the decision process moot. They are different or not, and that is usually the criteria for such a test. Looking for what one prefers requires the use of a MOS test and is a totally different subject matter.
Quote:
Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.
Music is fairly close to noise as a model and therefore can generally be used as a testing source where noise would be used. No big deal. One just has to understand it's limitations. This argument is only valid to those who don't understand that these limitations are already well known in the scientific community.
One of the oustanding problems is that audiophiles wouldn't accept testing with tones, even though that's all music really is when you get down to it. The scientific community continues to bow to their pressure in order to appease them, which is impossible, they're hopelessly infected with Audio Nervana Nervosa.
Mr. Kuller has done nothing except to spew hyperbole. He only understands enough to apease the audiophile in himself and the crowd he hangs with.
Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period. This is all very easily predicted by math(oh damn, a science) and so far, no one has proven any of the theories wrong on this. There have been some refinements along the way, but when you get right down to it, the basic formula, or theory if you will, still holds true. Therefore, the selling of cable and/or wire as a needed "sonic upgrade" in one's system is nothing more than psychology. The making of a passive component somehow active against all known physics. Of course, audiophiles reject this notion as easily as they do any test that shows the folly of their supposed wisdom. Heaven forbid that the audiophile community ever accepts that machine testing is orders of magnitude beyond our hearing capability when it comes to measurement of minute differences among components.
If audiphiles were really serious about the truth, they would be beating down the doors of the cables companies to perform tests run by an independant laboratory and freely publish the results. Why won't the cable companies do this voluntarily, because their three-ring marketing manuevers would be exposed for what they are, a circus of psychological manipulation designed to spur impulse buying.
rant mode off
-Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.
As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
Which does point out that E-Stat indeed has something to prove against his own words.
-Bruce
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLZapped
Cables have been tested to death for decades and no one, but no one has been able to find any property that doesn't boil down to L-C-R. Period.
Except of course for shielding and noise rejection. Speaking of which, what metric quantifies the shielding characteristics of say Belden 19364 SJT cord or 89259 coax? I just reviewed the specification sheet for each and could not locate any. What did I overlook?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
You still aren't getting what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that all cables are the same. I AM saying that sighted testing is garbage. There's not been a single piece of evidence presented here that would make a sane man believe that sighted testing is better than blind testing.
So let me repeat that for you: My problem with yeasayers is that they believe that sighted testing is equivalent or better than blind testing for audio purposes. I contend that it is not and would challenge anybody to prove otherwise. I am a very open minded guy. I changed my mind about cables once; there's no reason why I wouldn't again if presented with compelling evidence.
I understand perfectly - I just don't agree. As for proof, I don't need any and as a result I'm not inclined to go through the necessary gyrations to provide it. My problem with naysayers is that they all ask for proof, yet provide none. I know, I know - it's up to the claimant to prove a claim. So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required. But my argument goes in another direction, too. I am also not inclined to sit down and test each and every sensory perception I have simply because someone else doesn't like my conclusions. Where would it end? Sorry but if you're going to change your mind about cables, you'll have to do it on your own.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here?
A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.
Have you heard either electrostat yourself?
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
So why not prove that blind testing is best? Quotes won't do, speculation won't do. Proof is what is required.
What???!!!! Every proof in the world has shown that blind testing is the methodology of choice for human studies. I can't think of one study that's been done in the last 100 years that uses sighted testing as its methodology(unless it's been to prove that sighted testing is garbage). What more do you want? The argument by audiophiles is that hearing and enjoyment of music is some type of special sensory brain function that blind testing cannot accurately compare. What proof has there been for this hypothesis? The simpleton mouthings of an audio reviewer is all that I've seen as well as the conspiracy of wire enthusiasts. I'm sorry but the burden of proof for this hypothesis remains squarely on the shoulders of those who believe sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing. I contend that it is not and once again would ask anybody to provide evidence to the contrary.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!
Have you heard either electrostat yourself?
rw
I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. As an example, the most expensive speakers that I heard were Tannoy Churchills that were going on a nation wide tour of dealers. The highest model of Tannoy that this dealer normally carries is the Dimension series. Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. ...Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.
That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
What more do you want?.
Absolute proof that blind testing is the only way to reliably discern differences among audio components. I'm not talking about drug testing. I want proof that DBT's are sufficient to allow the subtleties of cables to pass through. I want proof that NO ONE has been able to tell one cable from another under blind test. I want proof of your entire POV. You ask for proof? It's hard to be motivated because you're asking for something you haven't provided. I personally don't feel the need to prove everything such as my own sensory perceptions. I have too many and it would take too long and there's too much good music out there to listen to and other things to do. If you want proof and you have the time, be my guest and attempt to prove it. You made the claim the blind testing is the best way to test differences in audio gear. Can you back up that claim with proof? Specific proof ONLY related to audio gear, please.
Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
...my weakness for trusting my ears! rw
As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Ok, back to reason. I hope you know that I don't expect you to go through all that. I also hope you know that I don't intend to, either. But if doing so is your inclination, have at it. I'll be happy to review any "proof" you have.
As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand. Every proof that has been laid out over the last century regarding human studies indicates that blind testing is the methodology of choice. The fallibility of human senses in sighted testing has been proven over and over and over again.
As you are also aware, there are very few absolutes in science. You can't say with absolute conviction that something isn't possible because you haven't tested all the different possibilities. You can say with absolute conviction, though, that something is 99.99999% certain. Given the evidence presented in the literature, I would contend that hearing is no different than any of the other senses, and hence requires blind testing to accurately measure.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
That's cool. Just wondered how you were sure I had made a good decision given my weakness for trusting my ears! I happen to think the Sound Labs Ultimates are downright awesome.
rw
Well, nobody is claiming that all speakers sound the same. You would normally be able to pick out in a blind test which speaker you prefer.
-
[QUOTE=magictooth]As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.
Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
As far as I've been able to tell so far, it's ok to trust your ears as long as someone somewhere has passed a blind test on the type of component you're trusting your ears on, i.e speakers. Blind tests rule. In fact, even when they can't hear a difference between two cables, they'd buy a specific one if it was picked out in a blind test, so I read in this forum. In other words, the buying decision is made with someone else's ears. And they find our POV unreliable??!!??! :)
Sorry, but you are giving in to your excessive need for hyperbole and you are misinterpreting what I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Yes, I would buy from that company. If a company could prove to me that their cables made a difference, then why wouldn't I buy it? It just happens that there's no company that has shown any kind of evidence that there are differences.
I should perhaps been clearer in that I haven't tried all sorts of cables (van den hul, Nordost, Maple Audio and a couple other high end are all that I've listened to in addition to custom made and cheaper brands). If a company could show that their particular cables made a difference in a credible scientific way, then I would certainly buy them at least to try and make my own judgments. It's the same with any other component - I'm willing to try it, but not all components are going to be pleasing to everybody. It just so happens that there isn't a cable company who has shown the least inclination to try and prove that their product works.
-
[QUOTE=musicoverall]
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
As you've indicated here, you are not interested in getting to the heart of the matter. You are interested in keeping your head in the sand.
Well, if that's how you see it, I have no problem with that. I have a lot more things to worry about than saving the newbie from the Evil Wire Gods. You, on the other hand, seem quite passionate about it. Yet, I've seen no proof from you, just a lot of speculation. Sorry, I'm just not interested in proving your claim for you.
No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
No, it's you who doesn't get it. The roles are reversed. I have the proof, you have the speculation (from no less authority than an audio reviewer). Like I said before, the burden of proof lies with cable companies to prove that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing for their product only. Their unwillingness to do so stems either from 1) the fact that they want to keep a certain segment of the population in the dark or from 2)that they are unable to design a test that would show their products in a positive light.
Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!
The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Or 3) they see no need to waste the money to try to prove anything to a group of naysayers. Are you so naive that you think a cable company's test is going to satisfy the objectivist crowd? Hell, they'd have to spend more money and repeat it ad nauseum. And where are your studies to show what their ROI would be? Why do you think it would be worth their time? These companies have already given you up for lost! They don't want or need you back! I honestly think that no proof is going to satisfy you (speaking as a group). Your science is your religion and you'll go to great lengths to protect it - and you don't mind using someone else's money!
The cable companies apparently see no such burden of proof as that which you've placed on them. If you can convince them to do so, I salute you. You certainly haven't convinced me.
LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
#3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration.
Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?
A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Not far fetched at all. As I pointed out some time ago (and referenced to you in post #33), you would be hard pressed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio component who "proves" their advertising claims with scientific studies. Why?
A. Such testing is expensive to conduct
B. Most folks couldn't care less as to the outcome of statistical studies (admittedly, you are among those who do. I had to chuckle with musicoverall's observation that you would buy a given cable if other folks "proved" it to be better)
C. Buyers of high end gear evaluate performance in their own systems
rw
It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out. Take speakers for example, is it a coincidence that the ratings are usually given as +/-3db? The limits of audibility have been shown to be approximately +/-3db for most normal people. How about THD? The specs given by speaker, amp, and other manufacturers are generally given below what a normal human being would consider objectionable THD. The proof is there if you look for it. It isn't there for cables.
As for you points:
A. This is incorrect. A scientifically correct study need not be expensive. I would agree that it would be expensive if the results received showed your product did nothing beneficial - in which case sales should go down.
B. I've also found most people wish to remain ignorant about the hows and wherefores of how a conclusion was reached. I doubt that many people have ever read about the Phase III clinical trials of xxx drug, but it is important nonetheless that these trials have been conducted.
C. Sure, under sighted, biased conditions. If the differences are so marked as has been claimed, then a blind test should yield the same results. I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
It is far fetched. As for any manufacture of any audio component proving anything, you just need to look at specs that most manufacturers put out.
The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.
Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.
Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.
Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???
E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.
There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.
Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.
rw
Most cable manufacturers that I've ever seen do not provide any meaningful specs. I don't assume that specs are useful. I use the example as when you see a product that doesn't give any specs (as most cable manufacturers are wont to do) such as Nuance speakers, then you need to approach them with more caution than you would with another type of speaker which does provide +/-3db specs. Take it another step when you compare those little minisytems. They purport to produce 300W, but at 20%THD. Specs aren't everything, but they can give an indication, however slight, about how a particular component will sound.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.
Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???
E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?
The fact that somebody does something or doesn't do something doesn't make it right. The fact that cable companies refuse to do even a modicum of real testing doesn't make it right. Your (yeasayer) reasons for why they refuse to test are specious. Your (yeasayer)logic for refusing to test is circular. As I've said before, I've never contended that all cables, amps and CDPs sound the same. I do hold forth that blind testing is the only reliable means of testing for differences when human senses and frailties are involved.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.
And so what is the basis for this thought? Your own and other audiophile observations.
The common way of advancing knowledge is to take a hypothesis (belief) --> obtain results --> foment a conclusion. In audiophile-land (la-la-land or the land of the delusional), the way things are determined is by taking a hypothesis (belief) --> drawing a conclusion. Thankfully this type of thinking is only prevalent in audio.
|